Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Suggestion Box
 | This page in a nutshell: This page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines, aimed at managing new suggestions. |
Listing: Suggestions are listed here for initial discussion. If your suggestion relates specifically to one particular policy or guideline, and is not a substantial change, it is best posted on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline. Also check that your suggestion is not covered by Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
Seconding: Suggestions may be seconded by any editor of good standing. Once a suggestion has been seconded, a third supporting editor may convert the suggestion to a proposal by listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Draft proposals and creating a proposal subpage, eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Draft proposals/brilliant new idea. The subpage should be linked from here.
Current suggestions
Example suggestion
Advantages
- Solves every problem you can think
Disadvantages
- Breaks everything
Previous Similar Proposals
- Unknown
Effect on other policies
- Complete rewrite
| Radicalness ( out of 10 ) | Ease of Implementation ( out of 10 ) | Editor Workload Impact ( -10 to +10 ) | Testability ( out of 10 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1 | -10 | 1 |
Search Results - Article Creation Wizard
Assumption: many articles which end up speedy-deleted or AFDd are created by people searching for something, not finding anything, and clicking one of the two red links on the Search Result page to create the article.
Proposal: Edit MediaWiki:Noexactmatch to recommend new users to use an Article Creation Wizard based on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Wizard, and provide the redlink (and links to relevant policy) for more experienced users. The new wizard could be located at WP:Article wizard (currently seemingly not in use, and the AfC wizard is much better). Draft of this new text here User:Rd232/Noexactmatch/Proposal.
Issues:
- The new text could also link to Articles for Creation in addition to the new wizard (but we'd want to avoid overloading that, and the current AfC wizard is aimed at anonymous users)
- Suggestion is currently aimed at MediaWiki:Noexactmatch; there are other related messages (eg MediaWiki:Newarticletext). In addition, the top redlink on Noexactmatch doesn't seem to be editable. So without a software change the new text would be in addition to this small redlink at the top.
- Alternatively the new text could be relegated to a new page linked from Noexactmatch; however I'm not sure how to include the appropriate redlink in this page for easy page creation. Probably this is doable!
Rd232 talk 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Advantages
- Guide new users through article creation process, at a particular point where they may be likely to start one; hence reduce unnecessary speedy deletion and AFD and produce better new articles.
Disadvantages
- If put on the Noexactmatch page, the text may be a bit much for casual searchers. (On the other hand, don't we want to encourage them to become editors, particularly via a friendly wizard?)
Previous Similar Proposals
Effect on other policies
- Reduction in speedy deletion and article deletion; possibly an increase at WP:AFC (if we link to that).
| Radicalness ( out of 10 ) | Ease of Implementation ( out of 10 ) | Editor Workload Impact ( -10 to +10 ) | Testability ( out of 10 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | -7 | 1 (site-wide implementation via Mediawiki notice) |
- Seconded. This seems like a very useful idea, and will ease new editors into improving the wiki, since most new editors add pages not found in search. Biglulu (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Inclusion policy
Current debate at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (among other experiences) suggests that it might be helpful to have an Inclusion Policy for content within articles (we already have inclusion for articles - WP:N and its daughters). Much of WP:NOT relates to the inclusion of content. Rd232 talk 01:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Advantages
- Help consolidate and focus policy
Disadvantages
- Lots of argument to be had in developing it!
Previous Similar Proposals
- Unknown
Effect on other policies
- probably limited - such a rewrite/refocus/restructure need not change the content (much)
| Radicalness (6 out of 10 ) | Ease of Implementation ( out of 10 ) | Editor Workload Impact ( -10 to +10 ) | Testability ( out of 10 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1 | +3 short-term, 0 long-term | 8 - can develop limited proposals alongside existing policy for specific areas first, eg draft WP:PLOT as Inclusion (fiction) |
Summary blanking amendment to PROD
Summary Blanking option as a possible amendment to WP:PROD. With PROD extended to 7 days, material that should probably be deleted but doesn't fit WP:CSD hangs around for 7 days. (On the other hand, material that probably shouldn't be deleted is now more likely to be kept.) Summary Blanking would permit a second editor who supports the PROD to blank the page (replacing it with a suitable template) after the page has been PROD-tagged for 24 hours. This makes it no harder to contest a PROD and remove the tag (1 revert), but (probable) junk or poor content is not shown to the world quite as long. Content is not deleted, but is still easily available via the History tab.
Candidates for blanking would be identified via a category, either of all PRODs, or only of PRODs recommended for blanking by the initial PRODder (by adding another template). Rd232 talk 14:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Advantages
- Meets some concerns of those who disagreed with recent extension of PROD from 5 days to 7 (junk displayed too long)
- Doesn't delete anything, doesn't make PROD any harder to contest, doesn't make PROD any harder to undo
- Incoming wikilinks are still blue, so editors (particularly those not involved before) may come and visit the page and see the issue and perhaps do something constructive
Disadvantages
- Content is no longer shown to the world. Editors who visit the page may not bother to click the History tab and so PRODs may be fixed less. This could be mitigated somewhat by having a link to the last version of the page directly in the template on the page (so easier to get at, and can be flagged more).
- Content not being shown immediately makes more work for the admin deleting PROD.
- More work to make summary blanking happen compared to just PRODding (though it is optional, and if it doesn't happen, it's just a normal PROD)
Previous Similar Proposals
- Unknown
Effect on other policies
- ?
| Radicalness ( out of 10 ) | Ease of Implementation ( out of 10 ) | Editor Workload Impact ( -10 to +10 ) | Testability ( out of 10 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 7 - basically a template, a category (summary blanked pages) and an uncomplicated process | +4 | 8 - could limit summary blanking to a specific class of pages first, eg PRODded pages without sources, PRODded WP:BLPs |
Right and Left Justification of all text paragraphs
Advantages
- Makes everything look neater.
Disadvantages
- Some people have an irrational hate of text justificaiton.
Previous Similar Proposals
- Unknown
Effect on other policies
- Minor change to formatting.
| Radicalness ( out of 10 ) | Ease of Implementation ( out of 10 ) | Editor Workload Impact ( -10 to +10 ) | Testability ( out of 10 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 10 |
Include A Feedback Section in Articles
Advantages
- Good way to encourage casual users, who might be intimidated by the process of editing a page, to participate in the improvement of articles
- Rewards contributors by visible recognition of their work
- Expands the community behind contributors/editors
Disadvantages
- Could increase the burden of removing vandalizing comments
- Could distract from the article itself, or introduce content that isn't the consensus of the editorial community
Previous Similar Proposals
- Unknown
Effect on other policies
- Unknown
| Radicalness ( out of 10 ) | Ease of Implementation ( out of 10 ) | Editor Workload Impact ( -10 to +10 ) | Testability ( out of 10 ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 5 | +2 | 9 |